Patrick Spread writes

<<If the situation is such that a deity will only grant eternal life if the
body of a Pharaoh is interred in a pyramid, then value, to those who see the
situation in that way, lies in construction of a pyramid.>>

This seems to me to explain the matter in a rather too classical, or
neo-classical a way – treating the pyramid as a good.  It occurs to me
further, Patrick, that you might not entirely disagree, thus I will spell my
own position out, in the hope of clarification.

I would argue that the primary aim of policy makers in bronze age pyramid
building societies was the maintenance of the social order, and most
especially their own privileged position within that social order.  Thus it
would be a mistake to see pyramids primarily as an end or a good.  Pyramid
building is an activity appropriate to, and underpinning, that social order.
 Its role is to reinforce the set of customs and beliefs which allowed the
transfer of good to take place at that time, which were primarily driven by
religious commands.

The theoretical language within which these matters were discussed in the
Late Bronze Age was perhaps still remembered in the Guanzi (written down
around the 4th century BC).  The preferred model there is called “top-down”,
the rather despised alternative “bottom up”.  To some extent, it seems to me
“Keynsianism” encompasses some of the theory of prehistoric “top down”
economics, just as “bottom up” somewhat resembles classical or neo-classical
ideas.

My preferred practical account of Ancient Egypt seem to be the standard
undergrad text these days:

Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry J. Kemp.  

Kemp paints a picture of a great deal of commercial activity taking place,
goods bought and sold etc, much as we experience today.  But all this
activity remained subsidiary to the principle distribution system which was
maintained by central authority, according to hierarchical precedents. 
Commercial life then was parasitic on the official custom and command
system, and looked quite a lot like a modern black market.

A final, perhaps self indulgent thought.  Is the top down economy still with
us today, in the guise of (some aspects of) “Keynsianism”?  In that case,
are we a mirror image of bronze age society, with top down now rather
parasitic upon bottom up, rather than the reverse, as it was then?  Is that
what Keynes himself hinted at when wrote of the matter?

Rob Tye, York, UK